HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017258.jpg
1.54 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal memoir / manuscript excerpt / house oversight committee production
File Size:
1.54 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a legal memoir or manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz, who argued *Tison v. Arizona*) submitted to the House Oversight Committee. It details the narrator's oral arguments before the Supreme Court on November 3, 1986, defending the Tison brothers against the death penalty by arguing they lacked specific intent to kill. The text recounts interactions with Justice White and mentions a challenge from Justice Scalia.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Narrator (Likely Alan Dershowitz) | Defense Attorney |
Arguing a case before the Supreme Court regarding the Tison brothers.
|
| Tison brothers | Defendants/Inmates |
Death row inmates facing execution; subjects of the Supreme Court case.
|
| Justice White | Supreme Court Justice |
Author of the Enmund majority opinion; questions the narrator during oral arguments.
|
| Antonin Scalia | Supreme Court Justice |
Recently appointed justice who challenged the narrator with a hypothetical case.
|
| Gary | Perpetrator |
Individual who tricked the brothers before opening fire.
|
| Randy | Perpetrator |
Individual who tricked the brothers before opening fire.
|
| Lyons' family | Victims |
Family murdered during the incident.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| State of Arizona |
The prosecution seeking to execute the Tison brothers.
|
|
| Arizona Supreme Court |
Found that the murder was not part of the original plan.
|
|
| Supreme Court of the United States |
Implied venue where Justice White and Justice Scalia are hearing the case.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document via Bates stamp.
|
Timeline (1 events)
November 3, 1986
Scheduled hearing of the Tison brothers' case before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court (implied)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the crime and the state seeking execution.
|
Relationships (2)
Narrator prepared brief and argument for them.
Key Quotes (4)
"The State of Arizona seeks to execute two young men who it acknowledges lacked the specific intent to kill, and did not, in fact, kill."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017258.jpg
Quote #1
"The state concedes that there was no specific intent to kill, and that there was no killing."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017258.jpg
Quote #2
"There is no evidence to support a finding for specific intent."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017258.jpg
Quote #3
"That's the end of the case. Your Honor, we think that's the end of the case."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017258.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,980 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
would shift the existing trend in favor of contracting the death penalty to a trend in favor of
expanding it. I know that the stakes were enormous, both for the Tison brothers and for the many
other death row inmates who had not been triggermen—as well as for the campaign against
capital punishment, as I prepared my brief and argument for the case that was scheduled to be
heard on November 3, 1986.
expanding it. I know that the stakes were enormous, both for the Tison brothers and for the many
other death row inmates who had not been triggermen—as well as for the campaign against
capital punishment, as I prepared my brief and argument for the case that was scheduled to be
heard on November 3, 1986.
I began my argument with a simple statement that I thought would be beyond any dispute:
"The State of Arizona seeks to execute two young men who it acknowledges lacked the
specific intent to kill, and did not, in fact, kill."
specific intent to kill, and did not, in fact, kill."
I was immediately interrupted by Justice White, the author of the Enmund majority opinion on
which I was relying:
which I was relying:
"Did you say the state concedes what?"
I repeated my point:
"The state concedes that there was no specific intent to kill, and that there was no killing."
Justice White pressed me:
"What do you mean by that?"
I explained that no one has ever suggested that the brother specifically intended to kill the Lyons'
family. Indeed, it was clear from the record that they specifically intended not to kill and that
Gary and Randy had to trick the brothers into going for water before opening fire. I also pointed
to a finding by the Arizona Supreme Court that the murder of the Lyons' family was not part of
the original plan and was utterly "unnecessary" to the escape. I told the court that, "There is no
evidence to support a finding for specific intent."
family. Indeed, it was clear from the record that they specifically intended not to kill and that
Gary and Randy had to trick the brothers into going for water before opening fire. I also pointed
to a finding by the Arizona Supreme Court that the murder of the Lyons' family was not part of
the original plan and was utterly "unnecessary" to the escape. I told the court that, "There is no
evidence to support a finding for specific intent."
The justices immediately shot back, "Well, if that's true, of course, that's the end of the case."
I agreed with that assessment and was pleased by it:
"That's the end of the case. Your Honor, we think that's the end of the case."
But it was far from the end of the case, at least in the minds of some of the justices. The recently
appointed Antonin Scalia came after me with a hypothetical case, an exercise I was thoroughly
appointed Antonin Scalia came after me with a hypothetical case, an exercise I was thoroughly
171
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017258
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document